Important ACT/ Committe

List of Acts of the Parliament of India

Category:Acts of the Parliament of India

Number of Acts enacted by year

Year

No.

1851

16

1852

35

1853

21

1854

1855

1856

1857

1858

1859

This is a chronological, but incomplete list of Acts passed by the Imperial Legislative Council between 1861 and 1947, the Constituent Assembly of India between 1947 and 1949, the Provisional Parliament between 1949 and 1952, and the Parliament of India since 1952.

National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, the National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Limited and the North-Eastern Electric Power Corporation Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Power Transmission Systems) Act

1993

24

Gold Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Act

1993

25

National Commission for Backward Classes Act

1993

27

Multimodal Transportation of Goods Act

1993

28

Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act Repealed by Act 27 of 2006 (w.e.f. date to be notified)

Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013

2013

25

Rajiv Gandhi National Aviation University Act, 2013

2013

26

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

2013

30

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

2014

1

Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014

2014

6

Street Vendors Act, 2014

2014

7

Rani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural University Act, 2014

2014

10

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Amendment) Act, 2014

2014

16

Securities Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014

2014

27

Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2011

2014

National Judicial Appointments Commission Act, 2014

2014

96-C

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2015

2015

36

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015

2015

22

IMPORTANT ACT OF INDIA

Dowry system in India

In India, Dowry (Hindi: दहेज, Dahēj) refers to the durable goods, cash, and real or movable property that the bride’s family gives to the bridegroom, his parents, or his relatives as a condition of the marriage. It is essentially in the nature of a payment in cash or some kind of gifts given to the bridegroom’s family along with the bride and includes cash, jewellery, electrical appliances, furniture, bedding, crockery, utensils and other household items that help the newlyweds set up their home. Dowry is referred to as Jahez in Arabic (derived from Islamic jahez-e-fatimi). In far eastern parts of India, dowry is called Aaunnpot.

Wedding gifts of the son of the Imam of Delhi India with soldiers and 2000 guests

The dowry system is thought to put great financial burden on the bride’s family. In some cases, the dowry system leads to crime against women, ranging from emotional abuse, injury to even deaths. The payment of dowry has been prohibited under specific Indian laws including, the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and subsequently by Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The history of dowry in South Asia is not clear. Some scholars believe dowry was practiced in antiquity, but some do not. Historical eyewitness reports, as discussed below, suggest dowry in ancient India was insignificant, and daughters had inheritance rights, which by custom were exercised at the time of their marriage.

Stanley J.Tambiah claims the ancient Code of Manu sanctioned dowry and bridewealth in ancient India, but dowry was the more prestigious form and associated with the Brahmanic (priestly) caste. Bridewealth was restricted to the lower castes, who were not allowed to give dowry. He cites two studies from the early 20th century with data to suggest that this pattern of dowry in upper castes and bridewealth in lower castes has persisted through the first half of the 20th century. However, it is more likely that marriages involved both reciprocal gifts between the two families, claims Tambiah, so that insofar as the groom’s family gives the bridewealth, it tends to be given back as the culturally validated dowry to the bride as part of her conjugal estate.

Michael Witzel, in contrast, claims the ancient Indian literature suggests dowry practices were not significant during the Vedic period. Witzel also notes that women in ancient India had property inheritance rights either by appointment or when they had no brothers.

The findings of MacDonell and Keith are similar to Witzel, and differ from Tambiah; they cite ancient Indian literature suggesting bridewealth was paid even in brahma- and daiva-types of marriage associated with the Brahmanic (priestly) upper caste. Dowry was not infrequent when the girl suffered from some bodily defect. Property rights for women increased in ancient India, suggest MacDonell and Keith, over the Epics era (200 BC to 700 AD). Kane claims ancient literature suggests bridewealth was paid only in the asura-type of marriage that was considered reprehensible and forbidden by Manu and other ancient Indian scribes. Lochtefeld suggests that religious duties listed by Manu and others, such as ‘the bride be richly adorned to celebrate marriage’ were ceremonial dress and jewelry along with gifts that were her property, not property demanded by or meant for the groom; Lochtefeld further notes that bridal adornment is not currently considered as dowry in most people’s mind.

Above analysis by various scholars is based on interpreting verses of ancient Sanskrit fiction and inconsistent smritis from India, not eyewitness accounts. Available eyewitness observations from ancient India give a different picture. One of these are the eyewitness records from Alexander the Great conquest (ca. 300 BC) as recorded by Arrian and Megasthenes. Arrian first book mentions a lack of dowry,

They (these ancient Indian people) make their marriages accordance with this principle, for in selecting a bride they care nothing whether she has a dowry and a handsome fortune, but look only to her beauty and other advantages of the outward person.

Arrian, The Invasion of India by Alexander the Great, 3rd Century BC

Arrian’s second book similarly notes,

They (Indians) marry without either giving or taking dowries, but the women as soon as they are marriageable are brought forward by their fathers in public, to be selected by the victor in wrestling or boxing or running or someone who excels in any other manly exercise.

~ Arrian, Indika in Megasthenes and Arrian, 3rd Century BC

The two sources suggest dowry was absent, or infrequent enough to be noticed by Arrian. About 1200 years after Arrian’s visit, another eyewitness scholar visited India named Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī, also known as Al-Biruni, or Alberonius in Latin. Al-Biruni was an Islamic era Persian scholar who went and lived in India for 16 years from 1017 CE. He translated many Indian texts into Arabic, as well as wrote a memoir on Indian culture and life he observed. Al-Biruni claimed,

The implements of the wedding rejoicings are brought forward. No gift (dower or dowry) is settled between them. The man gives only a present to the wife, as he thinks fit, and a marriage gift in advance, which he has no right to claim back, but the (proposed) wife may give it back to him of her own will (if she does not want to marry).

~ Al-Biruni, Chapter on Matrimony in India, about 1035 AD

Al-Biruni further claims that a daughter, in 11th century India, had legal right to inherit from her father, but only a fourth part of her brother. The daughter took this inheritance amount with her when she married, claimed Al-Biruni, and she had no rights to income from her parents after her marriage or to any additional inheritance after her father’s death. If her father died before her marriage, her guardian would first pay off her father’s debt, then allocate a fourth of the remaining wealth to her upkeep till she is ready to marry, and then give the rest to her to take with her into her married life. It is unclear what happened to these daughter’s inheritance laws in India after Al-Biruni’s visit to India in the 11th century. It is also unclear when, why and how quickly the practice of dowry demand by grooms began, whether this happened after the arrival of Islam in the late 11th century, or with the arrival of colonialism in the 16th century, or both.

Causes of the practice

Various reasons have been suggested as cause of dowry practice in India. These include economic factors and social factors.

Economic factors

There are many economic factors that contribute towards the system of dowry. Some of these include inheritance systems and the bride’s economic status.

Some suggestions point to economics and weak legal institutions on inheritance place women in disadvantage, with inheritances being left only to sons. This leaves women dependent upon their husbands and in-laws, who keep the dowry when she marries. Prior to 1956, including during the British Raj, daughters had no rights of inheritance to their family’s wealth. In 1956, India gave equal legal status to daughters and sons among Hindu, Sikh and Jain families, under the Hindu Succession Act (India grants its Muslim population the Sharia derived personal status laws). Despite the new inheritance law, dowry has continued as a process whereby parental property is distributed to a daughter at her marriage by a social process, rather than after parents death by a slow court supervised process under Hindu Succession Act (1956).

Dowry gave, at least in theory, women economic and financial security in their marriage in the form of movable goods. This helped prevent family wealth break-up and provided security to the bride at the same time. This system can also be used as a premortem inheritance, as once a woman is presented with movable gifts, she may be cut off from the family estate.

For many, dowry has become a greater financial burden on the family, and can leave families destitute based on the demands from the groom. The demand for dowry has increased over time.

Social factors

The structure and kinship of marriage in parts of India contributes to dowry. In the north, marriage usually follows a patrilocal (lives with husband’s family) system, where the groom is a non-related member of the family. This system encourages dowry perhaps due to the exclusion of the bride’s family after marriage as a form of premortem inheritance for the bride. In the south, marriage is more often conducted within the bride’s family, for example with close relatives or cross-cousins, and in a closer physical distance to her family. In addition, brides may have the ability to inherit land, which makes her more valuable in the marriage, decreasing the chance of dowry over the bride price system.

In addition to marriage customs that may influence dowry, social customs or rituals, and parents expectations of dowry are important factors to consider. A 1995 study showed that while attitudes of people are changing about dowry, dowry continues to prevail. In a 1980 study conducted by Rao, 75% of students responded that dowry was not important to marriage, but 40% of their parents’ likely expected dowry.

While India has been making progress for women’s rights, women continue to be in a subordinate status in their family. Women’s education, income, and health are some significant factors that play into the dowry system, and for how much control a woman has over her marriage.

Religious factors

Dowry in India is not limited to any specific religion. It is widespread among Hindus and other religions. For example, Indian Muslims call dowry as jahez, justify the practice in terms of jahez-e-fatimi. Islamists classify jahez into two categories: The first comprises some essential articles for the outfit of the bride as well as for conjugal life. The other is made up of valuable goods, clothes, jewelry, an amount of money for the groom’s family, which is settled on after bargaining. The jahez often far exceeds the cost of the baraat and marriage parties. The jahez is separate from cash payment as Mahr or dower that Sharia religious law requires.

Dowry in the modern era

A social awareness campaign in India on dowry

Dowry has been a prevalent practice in India’s modern era and in this context, it can be in the form of a payment of cash or gifts from the bride’s family to the bridegroom’s family upon marriage. There are variations on dowry prevalence based on geography and class. States in the north are more likely to participate in the dowry system among all classes, and dowry is more likely to be in the form of material and movable goods. In the south, the bride price system is more prevalent, and is more often in the form of land, or other inheritance goods. This system is tied to the social structure of marriage, which keeps marriage inside or close to family relations.

Dowry also varies by economic strata in India. Upper-class families are more likely to engage in the dowry system than the lower class. This could be in part due to women’s economic exclusion from the labor market in upper classes.

When dowry evolved in the Vedic period, it was essentially followed by the upper castes to benefit the bride, who was unable to inherit property under Hindu law. To counter this, the bride’s family provided the groom with dowry which would be registered in the bride’s name. This dowry was seen as stridhan (Sanskrit: woman’s property). Also, an important distinction is the fact that while the upper castes practiced dowry, the lower castes practiced bride price to compensate her family for the loss of income. In the modern era, the concept of dowry has evolved and Indian families no longer practice the traditional Vedic concept of dowry. This is because with the passage of time, bride price gradually disappeared and dowry became the prevalent form of transfer. In the modern era, the practice of dowry requires the bride’s family to transfer goods to the groom’s family in consideration for the marriage.

Since marriages in India are a time for big celebrations in each family, they tend to be very lavish. Accordingly, Indian weddings usually involve considerable expenditure and accompanying wedding presents from relatives in both sides of the family. This is normal expenditure which is done willingly and varies from one family to another depending on the wealth, status, etc. Many times, as part of this mutual ‘give-and-take’, an attempt is made by the groom’s family to dictate the quantum of each gift along with specific demands for dowry. In such circumstances, there is an element of exerting coercion on the bride’s family and this is what has come to be recognized as the menace of dowry in today’s times. Dowry does not refer to the voluntary presents which are made to the bride and the groom; rather it is what is extracted from the bride or her parents.

Types of dowry crimes

Recently married women can be a target for dowry related violence because she is tied economically and socially to her new husband. In some cases, dowry is used as a threat or hostage type situation, in order to extract more property from the bride’s family This can be seen in new brides, who are most vulnerable in the situation. Dowry crimes can occur with the threat or occurrence of violence, so that the bride’s family is left with no choice but to give more dowry to protect their daughter. The northern and eastern states of India show higher rates of dowry-related violence.

Dowry is considered a major contributor towards observed violence against women in India. Some of these offences include physical violence, emotional abuses, and even murder of brides and young girls prior to marriage. The predominant types of dowry crimes relate to cruelty (which includes torture and harassment), domestic violence (including physical, emotional and sexual assault), abetment to suicide and dowry death (including, issues of bride burning and murder).

Cruelty

Cruelty in the form of torture or harassment of a woman with the objective of forcing her to meet a demand for property or valuable security is a form of dowry crime. Such cruelty could just be in the form of verbal attacks or may be accompanied by beating or harassment in order to force the woman or her family to yield to dowry demands. In many instances, such cruelty may even force the woman to commit suicide and it has been specifically criminalized by the anti-dowry laws in India.

Where as the cruelty on wife is well recognized and defined by law, the same actions when committed on husband – do not constitute Cruelty. For example, if wife pressurizes husband to move to Separate House, buy her gold ornaments and gifts for every occasion OR forces him to buy a house, these things are never termed OR recognized as Cruelty on husband – even if they are out of husbands earning capacity. Husband does not have any remedy when the demands of the wife go beyond a reasonable threshold.

Domestic violence

Main article: Domestic violence in India

Domestic violence includes a broad spectrum of abusive and threatening behavior which includes physical, emotional, economic and sexual violence as well as intimidation, isolation and coercion. There are laws like the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 that help to reduce domestic violence and to protect women’s rights.

Abetment to suicide

Continuing abuse by the husband and his family with threats of harm could lead to a woman committing suicide. In such situations, the dowry crime even extends to abetment of suicide, which includes all acts and attempts to intentionally advise, encourage, or assist in committing suicide. The impact of dowry can leave a woman helpless and desperate, which can cumulate in emotional trauma and abuse. Dowry related abuse causes emotional trauma, depression and suicide. The offence of abetment to suicide is significant because in many cases, the accused persons often bring up a defense that the victim committed suicide at her own volition, even though this may not be true in reality.

Dowry death

Dowry deaths relate to a bride’s suicide or murder committed by her husband and his family soon after the marriage because of their dissatisfaction with the dowry. Most dowry deaths occur when the young woman, unable to bear the harassment and torture, commits suicide by hanging herself or consuming poison. Dowry deaths also include bride burning where brides are doused in kerosene and set ablaze by the husband or his family. Sometimes, due to their abetment to commit suicide, the bride may end up setting herself on fire. Bride burnings are often disguised as accidents or suicide attempts. Bride burnings are the most common forms of dowry deaths for a wide range of reasons like kerosene being inexpensive, there being insufficient evidence after the murder and low chances of survival rate. Apart from bride burning, there are some instances of poisoning, strangulation, acid attacks, etc., as a result of which brides are murdered by the groom’s family.

India, with its large population, reports the highest number of dowry related deaths in the world according to Indian National Crime Record Bureau. In 2012, 8,233 dowry death cases were reported across India, while in 2013, 8,083 dowry deaths were reported. This means a dowry-related crime causes the death of a woman every 90 minutes, or 1.4 deaths per year per 100,000 women in India. For contextual reference, the United Nations reports a worldwide average female homicide rate of 3.6 per 100,000 women, and an average of 1.6 homicides per 100,000 women for Northern Europe in 2012.

Laws against dowry

The first all-India legislative enactment relating to dowry to be put on the statute book was the The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and this legislation came into force from July 1, 1961. It marked the beginning of a new legal framework of dowry harassment laws effectively prohibiting the demanding, giving and taking of dowry. Although providing dowry is illegal, it is still common in many parts of India for a husband to seek a dowry from the wife’s family and in some cases, this results in a form of extortion and violence against the wife. To further strengthen the anti-dowry law and to stop offences of cruelty by the husband or his relatives against the wife, new provisions were added to the Indian criminal law – section 498A to Indian Penal Code and section 198A to the Criminal Procedure Code in 1983. In 2005, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was passed, which added an additional layer of protection from dowry harassment.

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 consolidated the anti-dowry laws which had been passed on certain states. This legislation provides for a penalty in section 3 if any person gives, takes or abets giving or receiving of dowry. The punishment could be imprisonment for a term not less than 5 years and a fine not less than ₹15,000 or the value of the dowry received, whichever is higher. Dowry in the Act is defined as any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given in connection with the marriage. The penalty for giving or taking dowry is not applicable in case of presents which are given at the time of marriage without any demand having been made. Similarly, section 4 of the Act provides the penalty for directly or indirectly demanding dowry and provides for a penalty involving a prison term of not less than 6 months and extendable up to two years along with a fine of ₹10,000. Dowry agreements are void ab initio and if any dowry is received by anyone other than the woman, it should be transferred to the woman. The burden of proving that an offense was not committed is on the persons charged and not on the victim or her family. Under its powers to frame rules for carrying out its objectives under the Act, the government of India has framed the Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and the Bridegroom Rules, 1985. There are also several state level amendments to the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The Indian criminal laws were comprehensively amended to include dowry as a punishable offence. Section 304B was added to the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), which made dowry death a specific offence punishable with a minimum sentence of imprisonment for 7 years and a maximum imprisonment for life. It provided that if the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs in suspicious circumstances within 7 years of her marriage, and there’s evidence to show that before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative regarding the demand for dowry, then the husband or the relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Further, section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act”), creates an additional presumption of dowry death when it is shown that before her death, the woman had been subjected to cruelty on account of dowry demand. Section 304B IPC along with Section 113B of the Evidence Act have enabled the conviction of many who were not caught by the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 113A of the Evidence Act provides a similar presumption of abetment of suicide (which is an offense under Section 306 IPC), in case of death of a married woman within a period of seven years of her marriage.

Additionally, the judiciary also includes a murder charge under Section 302 IPC as this allows courts to impose death penalty on perpetrators of the offence. Section 406 IPC, pertaining to offences for the criminal breach of trust, applies in cases of recovery of dowry as it is supposed to be for the benefit of the woman and her heirs.

Further, Section 498A IPC was specifically included in 1983 to protect women from cruelty and harassment. The constitutionality of Section 498A was challenged before the Supreme Court of India on grounds of abuse, on grounds that it gave arbitrary power to the police and the court. However, it was upheld in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005). The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that for the prosecution of offences under Section 498A IPC, the courts can only take cognizance only when it receives a report of the facts from the police or upon a complaint being made by the victim or her family.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Main article: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“Domestic Violence Act”) was passed in order to provide a civil law remedy for the protection of women from domestic violence in India. The Domestic Violence Act encompasses all forms of physical, verbal, emotional, economic and sexual abuse and forms a subset of the anti-dowry laws to the extent it is one of the reasons for domestic violence. Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act specifically incorporates all forms of harassment, injury and harms inflicted to coerce a woman to meet an unlawful demand for dowry. Some of the common remedies under the Domestic Violence Act include:

India is a party to several international human rights instruments which provide theoretical remedies to the dowry problems. These international conventions include the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”). CEDAW codifies the rights most relevant to the discussion of dowry-related violence: the rights of women. However, there are issues of non-intervention and cultural relativism which impede the use of international law to combat dowry deaths.

Criticisms on the enforcement of dowry laws

Although the changes in Indian criminal law reflects a serious effort by legislators to put an end to dowry-related crimes, and although they have been in effect for many years now, they have been largely criticised as being ineffective. Despite the Indian government’s efforts, the practice of dowry deaths and murders continues to take place unchecked in many parts of the country and this has further added to the concerns of enforcement. There is criticism by women’s groups that India’s dowry harassment laws are ineffective because the statutes are too vague, the police and the courts do not enforce the laws and social mores keep women subservient and docile, giving them a subordinate status in the society. Further, many women are afraid to implicate their husbands in a dowry crime simply because the Indian society is viewed as having conditioned women to anticipate or expect abuse and in some sense eventually, endure it. While the laws give great powers, they are not effectively enforced by the police or by courts. It can take up to 10 years for a case to go to court and even once in court, husbands and in-laws end up getting away with extortion or even murder because the women and their families cannot prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that they are the victims of such crimes, as there are rarely any outside witnesses. Moreover, when deaths occur through bride burning, evidence itself is usually lost in flames.

Criticisms on the abuse of dowry laws

There is growing criticism that the dowry laws are often being misused, particularly section 498A IPC which is observed by many in India as being prone to misuse because of mechanical arrests by the police. According to the National Crime Records Bureau statistics, in 2012, nearly 200,000 people including 47,951 women, were arrested in regard to dowry offences. However, only 15% of the accused were convicted.

In many cases of 498a, huge amounts of dowry are claimed without any valid reasoning. A rickshaw puller’s wife can allege that she gave crore’s of money as dowry and since it is a cognizable case, police are bound to register the case. And in most cases, the capacity of the wife or her parents and the source of the funds are never tracked.

Section 498A IPC was challenged but upheld by the Supreme Court of India in 2005. In 2010, the Supreme Court lamented about the possible misuse of anti-dowry laws in Preeti Gupta & Another v. State of Jharkhand & Another and recommended a detailed investigation. Based on the Supreme Court’s observations, the Indian parliament set up a committee headed by Bhagat Singh Koshyari. In July 2014, in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court reviewed the enforcement of section 41(1)(A) of CrPC which instructs state of following certain procedure before arrest, and went on to observe that the 498A had become a powerful weapon in the hands of disgruntled wives where innocent people were arrested without any evidence due to non-bailable and cognizable nature of the law. The decision received criticism from feminists because it weakened the negotiating power of women. Others welcomed the decision as landmark judgment to uphold the human rights of innocent people.

On April 19, 2015, the Indian government sought to introduce a bill to amend Section 498A IPC based on the suggestions of the Law Commission and Justice Malimath committee on reforms of criminal justice. News reports indicate that the proposed amendment will make the offence compoundable and this would facilitate couples to settle their disputes.

Right to Information Act, 2005

This article is about the Indian federal law.

Citation

Act No. 22 of 2005

Territorial extent

Whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir

Enacted by

Parliament of India

Date enacted

15-June-2005

Date assented to

22-June-2005

Date commenced

12-October-2005

First RTI application submitted by Shahid Raza Burney to a police station in Pune on 12 October 2005

Status: In force

The Right to Information Act (RTI) is an Act of the Parliament of India “to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens” and replaces the erstwhile Freedom of information Act, 2002. Under the provisions of the Act, any citizen may request information from a “public authority” (a body of Government or “instrumentality of State”) which is required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days. The Act also requires every public authority to computerise their records for wide dissemination and to proactively certain categories of information so that the citizens need minimum recourse to request for information formally. This law was passed by Parliament on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005. The first application was given to a Pune police station. Information disclosure in India was restricted by the Official Secrets Act 1923 and various other special laws, which the new RTI Act relaxes. It codifies a fundamental right of citizens.

Contents

1 Background of act

1.1 Freedom of Information Act 2002

1.2 State-level RTI Acts

2 Scope

2.1 Private bodies

2.2 Political parties

3 Process

4 Fees

5 Exclusions

5.1 Information Exclusions

Background of act

Freedom of Information Act 2002

The establishment of a national-level law for freedom of information proved to be a difficult task. The Central Government appointed a working group under H. D. Shourie and assigned it the task of drafting legislation. The Shourie draft, was the basis for the Freedom of Information Bill, 2000 which eventually became law under the Freedom of Information Act, 2002. This Act was severely criticised for permitting too many exemptions, not only under the standard grounds of national security and sovereignty, but also for requests that would involve “disproportionate diversion of the resources of a public authority”. There was no upper limit on the charges that could be levied. There were no penalties. The Act was passed by Parliament, but was never notified, so it did not attain legal force.

The Act covers the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir, where J&K Right to Information Act is in force. It covers all constitutional authorities, including the executive, legislature and judiciary; any institution or body established or constituted by an act of Parliament or a state legislature. It is also defined in the Act that bodies or authorities established or constituted by order or notification of appropriate government including bodies “owned, controlled or substantially financed” by government, or non-Government organizations “substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds” provided by the government are also covered in the Act.

Private bodies

Private bodies are not within the Act’s ambit directly. In a decision of Sarbjit roy vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, the Central Information Commission also reaffirmed that privatised public utility companies are not applicable for RTI. As of 2014, private institutions and NGOs receiving over 95% of their infrastructure funds from the government come under the Act.

Political parties

The Central Information Commission (CIC), consisting of Satyanand Mishra, M.L. Sharma and Annapurna Dixit, has held that the political parties are public authorities and are answerable to citizens under the RTI Act. The CIC, a quasi-judicial body, has said that six national parties – Congress, BJP, NCP, CPI(M), CPI and BSP and BJD – have been substantially funded indirectly by the Central Government and have the character of public authorities under the RTI Act as they perform public functions In August 2013 the government introduced a Right To Information (Amendment) Bill which would remove political parties from the scope of the law. In September 2013 the Bill was deferred to the Winter Session of Parliament. In December 2013 the Standing Committee on Law and Personnel said in its report tabled in Parliament

“The committee considers the proposed amendment is a right step to address the issue once and for all. The committee, therefore, recommends for passing of the Bill.”

Process

The RTI process involves reactive (as opposed to proactive) disclosure of information by the authorities. An RTI request initiates the process.

Each authority covered by the RTI Act must appoint their Public Information Officer (PIO). Any person may submit a written request to the PIO for information. It is the PIO’s obligation to provide information to citizens of India who request information under the Act. If the request pertains to another public authority (in whole or part), it is the PIO’s responsibility to transfer/forward the concerned portions of the request to a PIO of the other authority within 5 working days. In addition, every public authority is required to designate Assistant Public Information Officers (APIOs) to receive RTI requests and appeals for forwarding to the PIOs of their public authority. The applicant is required to disclose his name and contact particulars but not any other reasons or justification for seeking information.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) acts upon complaints from those individuals who have not been able to submit information requests to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer due to either the officer not having been appointed, or because the respective Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer refused to receive the application for information.

The Act specifies time limits for replying to the request.

If the request has been made to the PIO, the reply is to be given within 30 days of receipt.

If the request has been made to an APIO, the reply is to be given within 35 days of receipt.

If the PIO transfers the request to another public authority (better concerned with the information requested), the time allowed to reply is 30 days but computed from the day after it is received by the PIO of the transferee authority.

Information concerning corruption and Human Rights violations by scheduled Security agencies (those listed in the Second Schedule to the Act) is to be provided within 45 days but with the prior approval of the Central Information Commission.

However, if life or liberty of any person is involved, the PIO is expected to reply within 48 hours.

Since the information is to be paid for, the reply of the PIO is necessarily limited to either denying the request (in whole or part) and/or providing a computation of “further fees”. The time between the reply of the PIO and the time taken to deposit the further fees for information is excluded from the time allowed. If information is not provided within this period, it is treated as deemed refusal. Refusal with or without reasons may be ground for appeal or complaint. Further, information not provided in the times prescribed is to be provided free of charge. Appeal processes are also defined.

Fees

A citizen who desires to seek some information from a public authority is required to send, along with the application, a demand draft or a bankers cheque or an Indian Postal Order of Rs.10/- (Rupees ten) payable to the Accounts Officer of the public authority as fee prescribed for seeking information

The applicant may also be required to pay further fee towards the cost of providing the information, details of which shall be intimated to the applicant by the PIO as prescribed by the RTI ACT

Exclusions

Central Intelligence and Security agencies specified in the Second Schedule like IB,Directorate General of Income tax(Investigation), RAW, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, Directorate of Enforcement, Narcotics Control Bureau, Aviation Research Centre, Special Frontier Force, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, Assam Rifles, Special Service Bureau, Special Branch (CID), Andaman and Nicobar, The Crime Branch-CID-CB, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Special Branch, Lakshadweep Police etc. will be excluded. Agencies specified by the State Governments through a Notification will also be excluded. The exclusion, however, is not absolute and these organizations have an obligation to provide information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations. Further, information relating to allegations of human rights violation could be given but only with the approval of the Central or State Information Commission.

Information Exclusions

The following is exempt from disclosure under section 8 of the Act:-

Information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, “strategic, scientific or economic” interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offense;

Information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;

Information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature;

Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;

Information received in confidence from foreign Government;

Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;

Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;

Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers;

Information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual (but it is also provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied by this exemption);

Notwithstanding any of the exemptions listed above, a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. However, this does not apply to disclosure of “trade or commercial secrets protected by law “.

National Green Tribunal Act

Citation

Act No. 19 of 2010

Enacted by

Parliament of India

Date enacted

5 May 2010

Date assented to

2 June 2010

Legislative history

Bill published on

31 July 2009

Committee report

24 November 2009

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (NGT) is an Act of the Parliament of India which enables creation of a special tribunal to handle the expeditious disposal of the cases pertaining to environmental issues. It was enacted under India’s constitutional provision of Article 21, which assures the citizens of India the right to a healthy environment.

Contents

1 Definition

2 Origin

3 Members

4 Jurisdiction

5 Notable orders

5.1 Yamuna Conservation Zone

5.2 Coal Blocks in Chhattisgarh Forests

5.3 Ban on decade old Diesel vehicles at Delhi NCR

Definition

The legislate Act of Parliament defines the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 as follows,

“An Act to provide for the establishment of a National Green Tribunal for the effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural resources including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and giving relief and compensation for damages to persons and property and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”.

On 18 October 2010, Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta became its first Chairman. Currently it is chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar since 20 Dec 2012.

The Tribunal’s dedicated jurisdiction in environmental matters shall provide speedy environmental justice and help reduce the burden of litigation in the higher courts. The Tribunal shall not be bound by the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but shall be guided by principles of natural justice. The Tribunal is mandated to make and endeavour for disposal of applications or appeals finally within 6 months of filing of the same.Initially, the NGT is proposed to be set up at five places of sittings and will follow circuit procedure for making itself more accessible; New Delhi is the Principal Place of Sitting of the Tribunal and Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata and Chennai shall be the other 4 place of sitting of the Tribunal.

Origin

During the Rio de Janeiro summit of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992, India vowed the participating states to provide judicial and administrative remedies for the victims of the pollutants and other environmental damage.

There lie many reasons behind the setting up of this tribunal. After India’s move with Carbon credits, such tribunal may play a vital role in ensuring the control of emissions and maintaining the desired levels. This is the first body of its kind that is required by its parent statute to apply the “polluter pays” principle and the principle of sustainable development.

This court can rightly be called ‘special’ because India is the third country following Australia and New Zealand to have such a system.

Members

The sanctioned strength of the tribunal is currently 10 expert members and 10 judicial members although the act allows for up to 20 of each. The Chairman of the tribunal who is the administrative head of the tribunal also serves as a judicial member. Every bench of tribunal must consist of at least one expert member and one judicial member. The Chairman of the tribunal is required to be a serving or retired Chief Justice of a High Court or a judge of the Supreme Court of India. Members are chosen by a selection committee (headed by a sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India) that reviews their applications and conducts interviews. The Judicial members are chosen from applicants who are serving or retired judges of High Courts. Expert members are chosen from applicants who are either serving or retired bureaucrats not below the rank of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India (not below the rank of Principal Secretary if serving under a state government) with a minimum administrative experience of five years in dealing with environmental matters. Or, the expert members must have a doctorate in a related field.

Jurisdiction

The Tribunal has Original Jurisdiction on matters of “substantial question relating to environment” (i.e. a community at large is affected, damage to public health at broader level) & “damage to environment due to specific activity” (such as pollution). However there is no specific method is defined in Law for determining “substantial” damage to environment, property or public health. There is restricted access to an individual only if damage to environment is substantial. The powers of tribunal related to an award are equivalent to Civil court and tribunal may transmit any order/award to civil court have local jurisdiction.however, the tribunal doesnot follow civil law. it follows principles of natural justiceThe Bill specifies that an application for dispute related to environment can be filled within six months only when first time dispute arose (provide tribunal can accept application after 60 days if it is satisfied that appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filling the application).

Also Tribunal is competent to hear cases for several acts such as Forest (Conservation) Act, Biological Diversity Act, Environment (Protection) Act, Water & Air (Prevention & control of Pollution) Acts etc. and also have appellate jurisdiction related to above acts after establishment of Tribunal within a period of 30 days of award or order received by aggrieved party. The Bill says that decision taken by majority of members shall be binding and every order of Tribunal shall be final. Any person aggrieved by an award, decision, or order of the Tribunal may appeal to the Supreme Court within 90 days of commencement of award but Supreme Court can entertain appeal even after 90 days if appellant satisfied SC by giving sufficient reasons.

Notable orders

Yamuna Conservation Zone

On 25 April 2014, The NGT said that the health of Yamuna will be affected by the proposed recreational facilities on the river. The NGT also recommended the Government to declare a 52 km stretch of the Yamuna in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh as a conservation zone.

Coal Blocks in Chhattisgarh Forests

The National Green Tribunal has cancelled the clearance given by the then Union Environment and Forests Minister, Jairam Ramesh, to the Parsa East and Kante-Basan captive coal blocks in the Hasdeo-Arand forests of Chhattisgarh, overruling the statutory Forest Advisory Committee.

The forest clearance was given by Mr. Ramesh in June 2011, overriding the advice of the Ministry’s expert panel on the two blocks for mining by a joint venture between Adani and Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited. The blocks requiring 1,989 hectares of forestland fell in an area that the government had initially barred as it was considered a patch of valuable forest and demarcated as a ‘no-go’ area.

The order is bound to have a more far-reaching impact, with the tribunal holding that “mere expression of fanciful reasons relating to environmental concerns without any basis, scientific study or past experience would not render the advice of FAC — a body of experts — inconsequential. Under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the FAC is required to appraise projects that require forestlands and advise the Environment Ministry to grant approval or reject the proposals.

But in this case, the NGT noted, the Minister had taken all of one day and relied upon his “understanding and belief” without any “basis either in any authoritative study or experience in the relevant fields.” The Minister, while clearing the coal blocks, had given six reasons for doing so, including that the coal blocks are linked to super-critical thermal power plant, which is imperative to sustain the momentum generated in the XI Plan for increasing power production. These ‘anthropocentric’ considerations, the NGT held, were not valid to evaluate the project.

Ban on decade old Diesel vehicles at Delhi NCR

An attempt to minimize air pollution at capital of India and NCR. PM 2.5 particles have reached alarming level. As per this order, 10 yrs old vehicles are not allowed to ply. However, as per Media report, central Government exploring to appeal against the order at Supreme Court, especially for personal vehicles.

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

(Redirected from Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013)

This article is about The Lokpal Act, 2013. For Lokpal, an article containing general purpose definition and the Jan Lokpal Bill in particular, see Lokpal. For Jan Lokpal Bill, a draft anti-corruption bill written by the civil society group, India Against Corruption, see Jan Lokpal Bill.

Referred to The Parliament’s Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances and Law and Justice on 8 August 2011.

Re-introduced in Lok Sabha on 22 December 2011. Passed by Lok Sabha on 27 December 2011.

Introduced in Rajya Sabha on 29 December 2011.

Re-introduced in Rajya Sabha on 21 May 2012.

Referred to The Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha on 21 May 2012. The bill was passed in the Rajya Sabha on 17 December 2013 and in the Lok Sabha on 18 December 2013.

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, commonly known as The Lokpal Act, is an anti-corruption Act of Indian Parliament in India which “seeks to provide for the establishment of the institution of Lokpal to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for matters connecting them”.

The Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 22 December 2011 and was passed by the House on 27 December as The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011. It was subsequently tabled in the Rajya Sabha on 29 December. After a marathon debate that stretched until midnight of the following day, the vote failed to take place for lack of time. On 21 May 2012, it was referred to a Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha for consideration. It was passed in the Rajya Sabha on 17 December 2013 after making certain amendments to the earlier Bill and in the Lok Sabha the next day. It received assent from President Pranab Mukherjee on 1 January 2014 and came into force from 16 January.

The Bill was introduced in the parliament following massive public protests led by anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare and his associates. The Bill is one of the most widely discussed and debated Bills in India, both by the media and the People of India at large, in recent times. The protests were named among the “Top 10 News Stories of 2011” by the magazine Time. The bill received worldwide media coverage.

In 2011, India ranked 95th in the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International. A recent survey estimated that corruption in India had cost billions of dollars and threatened to derail growth. India lost a staggering $462 billion in illicit financial flows due to tax evasion, crime and corruption post-Independence, according to a report released by Washington-based Global Financial Integrity.

Contents

1 Background

2 History

2.1 2010 draft bill

2.2 Joint draft bill

2.2.1 First draft meeting

2.2.2 Second draft meeting

2.2.3 Third draft meeting

2.2.4 Fourth draft meeting

2.2.5 Fifth draft meeting

2.2.6 Sixth draft meeting

2.2.7 Seventh draft meeting

2.3 Union Cabinet approved bill

2.4 Standing Committee bill

3 Enactment by the Lok Sabha

4 Journey through The Rajya Sabha

4.1 Winter session, 2011

4.2 Budget session, 2012

4.3 Monsoon session, 2012

Background

The term Lokpal was coined in 1963 by Laxmi Mall Singhvi, a member of parliament during a parliamentary debate about grievance mechanisms. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by Morarji Desai submitted an interim report on “Problems of Redressal of Citizen’s Grievances” in 1966. In this report, ARC recommended the creation of two special authorities designated as ‘Lokpal’ and ‘Lokayukta’ for redress of citizens’ grievances. The word was derived from the Sanskrit words “Lok” (people) and “Pala” (protector/caretaker), meaning ‘Caretaker of People’.

Maharashtra was the first state to introduce Lokayukta through The Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act in 1971. Presently, there are no Lokayuktas in the states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal.

The Lokpal bill was first introduced in the Lok Sabha in 1968. The version enacted in 2013 was from a draft prepared in 2010. The bill is an implementation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Eleven parliamentary panels have been formed to discuss the Lokpal bill.

Recurring cost of lokpal over the years

Year

Cost of lokpal (recurring)

Status of bill

1968

Rs. 300,000

The Fourth Lok Sabha dissolved before the bill could be passed by the Rajya Sabha. The bill lapsed.

1971

Rs. 2 million

This bill lapsed on dissolution of the Fifth Lok Sabha.

1977

Rs. 2.5 million

The Sixth Lok Sabha dissolved just before the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee could be considered.

1985

Rs. 2.5 million

This bill was withdrawn by the government.

1989

Rs. 3.5 million

This bill lapsed on dissolution of the Ninth Lok Sabha.

1996

Rs. 10 million

The Standing Committee presented its report to Parliament on 9 May 1996. However, the Lok Sabha was dissolved before government could finalise its stand.

1998

Rs. 10 million

The Twelfth Lok Sabha was dissolved before government could take a view on the recommendations made by The Parliamentary Standing Committee.

2001

Rs. 15 million

The Lok Sabha was dissolved. Hence, the bill lapsed.

2011/2012

The Government’s version of Lokpal does not have any financial memorandum.

Passed by the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. Rajya Sabha passed the bill on 17 December 2013. Lok sabha passed the bill on 18 December 2013.

History

2010 draft bill

Anna Hazare’s hunger strike at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi

The 2010 draft was created by the United Progressive Alliance to create an Ombudsman tasked with tackling political corruption. The draft was circulated to various ministries for their review. It provided a mechanism for filing complaints against the prime minister, ministers and MPs. However, civil society groups were not and rejected it as a toothless body with only recommendatory powers.

Hazare started an indefinite hunger strike on 5 April 2011 to pressure the government to create an ombudsman with the power to deal with corruption in public places as envisaged in the Jan Lokpal Bill. The fast led to nationwide protests in support. The fast ended on 9 April, one day after the government accepted his demands. The government issued a gazette notification on the formation of a joint committee, consisting of government and civil society representatives, to draft the legislation.

Joint draft bill

A Joint Drafting Committee was established, consisting of five ministers and five members of the civil society. The chairman of the Joint Drafting Committee was Pranab Mukherjee. The Committee set 30 June 2011 as the deadline to complete the drafting process.

Ten member Joint Drafting Committee

Member Name

Party

Pranab Mukherjee

Union Minister of Finance

P. Chidambaram

Union Minister of Home Affairs

M. Veerappa Moily

Union Minister of Law and Justice

Kapil Sibal

Minister of Communication and Information Technology

Salman Khursheed

Union Minister of Water Resources

Anna Hazare

Civil society

N. Santosh Hegde

Civil Society, Retired Judge Supreme Court of India

Shanti Bhushan

Civil Society, Former Union Minister of Law and Justice

Prashant Bhushan

Civil Society

Arvind Kejriwal

Civil Society

First draft meeting

All of the Joint Draft meetings took place at the North Block

The Committee first met on 16 April in 2011, in the North Block and lasted for about ninety minutes. Team Anna presented their version of the bill with a slight modification relating to the selection panel to choose the Lokpal and its members. Under the revised proposal, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha were replaced with the Rajya Sabha chairman and the Lok Sabha Speaker. The meeting was allegedly recorded and the Committee claimed that decisions would be made available to the general public. HRD Minister and Committee member Kapil Sibal, said that both the sides were keen that the new Bill should be introduced in the Monsoon session, which would begin early July.

Second draft meeting

The Committee met as planned on 2 May in 2011. The meeting was termed “very good” and with “no difference of opinion” between the panel members. Sibal said that the meeting discussed the document presented previously by the civil society members. Prashant Bhushan said, “The meeting was mainly to discuss the basic principles behind the Jan Lokpal Bill. The discussion was on essential features, objects and reasons of the bill which have been prepared according to the main provisions of the UN Convention against Corruption. All signatories of the United Nations Convention against Corruption have to pass this kind of law.” In May 2011, the Indian Government had ratified two UN Conventions – the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) and its three protocols.

Third draft meeting

Kapil Sibal, member of the Joint Drafting Committee of Lokpal

After the third meeting on 7 May in 2011, Bhushan said “Lokpal will have powers to initiate investigation and prosecution and will not need permission from the government. The model on which the financial independence will be based is yet to be decided. Various models were discussed, including from other countries and of institutions like the Supreme Court, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Central Vigilance Commission.” Kapil Sibal said the meeting was “exceptionally constructive” and added, “The approach was very constructive. There were areas of broad agreement, including the process of appointment of Lokpal which should be transparent.” Another group of civil society members led by Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander working for a strong Lokpal Bill, upped its ante against Team Anna. Under the banner of the “National Campaign for People’s Right to Information” (NCPRI) they claimed that Anna’s diktat could be dangerous and that the government’s functioning could not be handled by one group.

Fourth draft meeting

The 23 May meeting in 2011 lasted over three hours and the two sides agreed “in-principle” on half of the 40 basic principles for the anti-graft Lokpal bill proposed by the civil society members.

Fifth draft meeting

At the 30 May 2011 meeting the chairman made it clear during the discussion that the matters pertaining to the exclusion of Prime Minister, Judiciary would be a part of the discussions on the scope of the Lokpal. The Chairman of the Panel announced that the conduct of the MPs’ inside Parliament would remain outside its remit of the Lokpal to comply with [Article 105(2)] of the Constitution and that the views of the State and the political parties would be discussed with the civil society members. These announcements created a stalemate between the Committee’s two-halves.

Sixth draft meeting

Team Anna boycotted 6 June 2011 meeting, alleging that the police crackdown on Baba Ramdev had “strengthened the doubts” about the government’s intentions and demanded that the next meeting be rescheduled because of Hazare’s other commitments. Shanti Bhushan produced a letter that was read by the Chair “indicating their inability to attend the meeting” and “that what happened at the Ramlila ground had nothing to do with the proceedings of the Joint Drafting Committee”. The chairman suggested that the drafting should be the focus. Post meeting, the draft was to be circulated to the other political parties for their consideration. They rescheduled the seventh meeting to 15 June.

Seventh draft meeting

The two hours event took place on 15 June in 2011, with out agreement on several issues. Both sides furnished versions to the Union Cabinet for consideration. Team Anna blamed the government for not being serious, claiming “The government is planning to kill Lokpal before it’s born”. The civil society members suggested that the Lokpal be empowered to probe corruption cases in instead of the departmental probes and CBI inquiries of the prior approach. The government rejected the idea. Chief Ministers of several BJP-ruled states expressed surprise that they were being consulted before the final draft was ready. Chief ministers of Congress-ruled states backed the Centre’s stand and opposed bringing the prime minister under the Lokpal’s ambit. BJP-ruled states sought wider deliberations. Opposition parties demanded to comment on the whole bill rather than on the six contentious issues. Anna Team demanded that the audio of the proceedings be made available to them. Hazare threatened to resume an indefinite fast if the bill was not passed by 15 August.

Comparison of Draft Lokpal Bill with the Jan Lokpal Bill

Issues

Draft Lokpal Bill, 2011 (government representatives)

Draft Jan Lokpal Bill, 2011 (nominees of Anna Hazare)

Composition

Chairperson and 10 members (at least 4 judicial members)

Chairperson and 10 members (at least 4 members with legal background). The Chairperson to have extensive knowledge of law.

Tenure

Five years or till he is 70 years

Five years or till he is 70 years

Manner of appointment

Presidential appointment on the recommendation of the selection committee.

Presidential appointment on the recommendation of the selection committee.

Committee membership

Prime Minister, speaker, Leader of the House of which PM is not member, Minister of Home Affairs, Leader of the Opposition in both Houses, judge of Supreme Court, Chief Justice of a High Court, President of National Academy of Science, Cabinet Secretary (secretary of committee).

Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, 2 judges of the Supreme Court, 2 chief justices of a high court, the Chief Election Commission, the CAG, and all previous chairpersons of the Lokpal. The members shall be selected from a list prepared by the Search Committee (10 members including civil society representatives).

Qualification

Impeccable integrity with at least 25 years of experience in public affairs, academics, commerce, finance etc. Once appointed, cannot be an MP, MLA or be connected with a political party, business or practice a profession. A judicial member has to be either a Chief Justice of the High Court or a judge of the Supreme Court.

A judicial member should have held judicial office for at least 10 years or been an advocate of the High Court or Supreme Court for at least 15 years. All members should be of impeccable integrity with record of public service especially in the field of corruption. Must be a citizen of India at least 45 years old. Must have no case involving moral turpitude framed against him by a court. Cannot have been a government servant within the last 2 years.

Removal

Complaint against members are made to the President who may refer it to the Supreme Court who will conduct an inquiry. The President may remove the member, on the opinion of the Chief Justice, on grounds of bias, corruption, insolvency, paid employment or infirmity.

The President removes members on the recommendation of the Supreme Court made within 3 months of a complaint. Grounds for removal: misbehavior, infirmity, insolvency, paid employment outside the office. An Independent Complaints Authority at the state level inquires into complaints against Lokpal staff.

Jurisdiction

All corruption cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It covers MPs, Ministers, ‘Group A’ officers, ‘Group A’ officers in a company or body owned by the government, any officer of a government-financed society or trust or funded by Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 or that gets funds from the public. Excludes PM, judiciary and any action of an MP in the Parliament or Committee.

Offences by a public servant, including government employees, judges, MPs, Ministers, and the Prime Minister under the Indian Penal Code and the 1988 Corruption Act. Any offence committed by an MP in respect of a speech or vote in the House; wilfully giving or taking benefit from a person. Victimizing a whistleblower or witness.

Investigation

Lokpal must conduct a preliminary inquiry within 30 days. If there is no prima facie case, the matter is closed. Given a prima facie case, Lokpal investigates after providing a suitable forum to the accused. The investigation must be completed within six months with an optional six-month extension after giving reasons in writing. No sanction shall be required by the Lokpal to investigate any complaint against a public servant.

When investigating corruption cases, the CBI works under the Lokpal. Investigation of the Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs and judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts require the permission of a 7-member bench of the Lokpal. Investigations can last 6 to 18 months. Investigation of whistleblower complaints who are in danger of victimisation, must be completed within 3 months.

Prosecution

The Lokpal may constitute a prosecution wing headed by a director who files cases in the Special Court (to be constituted by the central government on recommendation of the Lokpal). Trials must complete within one year, which may be extended to two years for reasons given in writing. No sanction is required to file a case against a public servant. The Lokpal files cases in the Special Court and sends a copy of the report to the competent authority.

Procedure for persons other than MPs and ministers: The competent authority is the Minister for officers of government bodies and the society head for officers of societies. The Lokpal recommends disciplinary proceedings to the competent authority and provides a copy of the report to the accused. The competent authority must take action within 30 days and inform the Lokpal within 6 months of initiating disciplinary proceedings.

Procedure for MPs and ministers: The competent authority is the PM for Ministers and the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha for MPs. The Speaker/Chairman tables the report in Parliament. The House reports to the Lokpal on any action taken within 90 days.

The CBI’s prosecution wing moves under Lokpal. After an investigation is completed, the Lokpal may either initiate prosecution against the accused or impose penalty or both. The Lokpal can initiate prosecution in the Special Court formed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Lokpal shall appoint retired judges or retired civil servants as judicial officers. A bench of judicial officers can impose a penalty on a public servant after conducting an inquiry. The decision shall be subject to approval from a higher authority to be prescribed.

Prosecution can be initiated against the Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs and judge of the Supreme Court or High Courts only with permission of a 7-member bench of the Lokpal. If the Lokpal grants permission to investigate or initiate prosecution, no sanction is required from any other authority.

Penalty

Any person making false and frivolous or vexatious complaints shall be penalised with 2 to 5 years of jail and fine of Rs 25,000 to Rs 200,000.

For any act of corruption, the penalty shall be from six months to life imprisonment. If the beneficiary for an offence is a business entity, a fine of up to five times the loss caused to the public shall be recovered. If a company director is convicted, the company shall be blacklisted from any government contract. Convicted public servants are removed from office. Persons making a false complaint, are fined up to Rs 100,000. False complaints against a member of the Lokpal may result in 3 months imprisonment.

Funding

Paid by Consolidated Fund of India.

Paid by Consolidated Fund of India. The budget of the Lokpal should not be less than 0.25 percent of total government revenue. No sanction required from government to incur expenditure. The CAG audits Lokpal and a Parliamentary Committee evaluates Lokpal operations.

Other powers

The Lokpal can search and seize documents, attach property for 90 days, file for confirming the attachment within 30 days, and recommend suspension of the accused.

The Lokpal can receive complaints from whistle-blowers, issue search warrants, attach property, recommend cancellation/modification of a lease or license or blacklist a company. If recommendation of Lokpal is not accepted it can approach the High Court. A bench of the Lokpal can approve interception and monitoring of messages transmitted through telephone or internet.

Union Cabinet approved bill

The government moved its version of the billin the Lok Sabha on 4 August, the ninth such introduction. The bill was introduced by the Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, V Narayanasamy. Leader of Opposition Sushma Swaraj opposed the exclusion of the prime minister from the purview of the proposed Lokpal. V Narayanasamy told the House that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was in favour of bringing his office under the purview of the Lokpal, but the Cabinet rejected the idea after deliberation. Anna Hazare burnt copies of the bill, to protest the government’s lack of sincerity. On 27 August the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha passed a Pranab Mukherjee-proposed resolution conveying the sense of the House on the Lokpal Bill. The House agreed ‘in principle’ on a Citizen’s Charter, placing the lower bureaucracy under the Lokpal and establishing the Lokayukta in the States.

The Jan Lokpal Bill was submitted to the committee by Congress MP from Bareilly Praveen Singh Aron. The draft bill was distributed to members on 28 November. The committee recommended keeping judiciary and MPs’ out of the Lokpal’s purview and rejected the demand to move the prosecution wing of CBI under its jurisdiction. Committee members had unanimously recommended conferring constitutional status on the Lokpal and setting up of Lokpal and Lokayuktas in states under one bill. The draft document did not take a position on the inclusion of prime minister. Another of Team Anna’s demands for inclusion of entire bureaucracy was turned down, given that the draft favoured inclusion of Group A and B officials, leaving out C and D staff. Anna Hazare rejected this draft. At the final meeting on 7 December they decided to bring Group C and D officers under the ambit of state Lokayuktas. Sixteen dissent notes were submitted at the meeting by members from BJP, BJD, SP, Congress, RJD and the Left.

Enactment by the Lok Sabha

The Lokpal Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 22 December 2011 and passed by voice voting on the first day of the three-day extended session of the Winter session of the Lok Sabha, on 27 December 2011, after a marathon debate that lasted over 10 hours. The lokpal body was not given the constitutional status as the Constitutional Amendment Bill, which provided for making the Lokpal a constitutional body, was defeated in the house. The Prime Minister described this as “a bit of disappointment”, adding, “We have, however, fulfilled our objective of bringing these bills to Parliament as we had promised.” The bill passed by the house was termed “useless” by Team Anna, who reiterated their view that there was no need to give constitutional status to such a weak Lokpal.

The bill was passed in the Lok Sabha. But, it is pending in the Rajya Sabha

The government withdrew its previous version and had introduced a newer version of the bill. RJD leader Lalu Prasad, along with the support from the other parties like SP, AIMMM and LJP, demanded an inclusion of candidates from minorities in the nine member Lokpal Bench. The government gave in to the demands of parties. The principal opposition party, the BJP, objected to it, classifying that such a move was illegal and asked the government to withdraw the bill. BJD, JDU, RJD, SP, TDP and Left said the bill was weak and wanted it to be withdrawn.

The bill passed by the house deleted the provision that gave presiding officers the power to act against ministers and MPs, even before trial, but the exemption time of former MPs was increased from five to seven years. It excluded armed forces and coast guard from the purview of the anti-graft body. The lokpal would take complaints against the prime minister after the consent of two-thirds of the Lokpal panel. The consent of state governments is mandatory for the notification to set up Lokayuktas in the states, but the setting up of them in the states was made mandatory. The appointment panel is loaded in favour of the government. The Lokpal Bill was passed under Article 252 of the constitution of India. The Prime Minister said, “We believe that the CBI should function without interference through any Government diktat. But no institution and no individual, howsoever high he may be, should be free from accountability.”

The Left, Samajwadi Party and BSP staged a walkout during voting of the bill, protesting that their demands were not being met. At least 15 Congress members and close to a dozen belonging to UPA allies were not present at the time of voting. The house also secured the passage of the Whistleblowers Bill

Journey through The Rajya Sabha

Winter session, 2011

Hamid Ansari, Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, adjourned the house sine die

The ombudsman debate was taken up by The Rajya Sabha during the last day of the three-day extension of the winter session of Parliament, but the body recessed on 29 December without voting. The bill was debated for over 12 hours ending abruptly at midnight as the House ran out of scheduled time. The House was adjourned sine die by Chairman Hamid Ansari. A verbal duel marred proceedings as some members including UPA ally Trinamool Congress interrupted V. Narayanasamy’s defence of the Bill. A vociferous opposition insisted on a vote while the government maintained it needed time to reconcile the 187 amendments/ Confusion marked the proceedings. Ansari asked for the national anthem Jana Gana Mana to be played, signalling the end of the proceedings and told the house:

This is an unprecedented situation…there appears to be a desire to outshout each other. There is a total impasse. The House cannot be conducted in the noise that requires orderly proceedings, I am afraid the Chair has no option…most reluctantly…I am afraid I can’t and…

After a 15-minute adjournment between 11.30 and 11.45 PM, Pawan Kumar Bansal said that the decision on extension of the House was the government’s prerogative. Leader of the Opposition Arun Jaitley charged that the government was running away from Parliament and that the House should decide how long it should sit. He added:

You are creating an institution where you control the appointment mechanism, where you control the removal mechanism. We will support the appointment of the Lokpal procedures, but we cannot be disloyal to our commitment to create an integrity institution.

Sitaram Yechury (CPI-M) said the House had expected the bill on Wednesday, but it came only on Thursday, the last day of the session. Derek O’Brien said “This is a shameful day for India’s democracy. The government handled this situation very badly.” As the Opposition insisted on a vote, Bansal said the government was willing provided that the House passed the Bill voted by the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. This meant that the proposed amendments would have to be set aside.

As stalemate and wrangling continued, the chairman called an end to the proceedings. Chidambaram defended the deferment of Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, 2011 in Rajya Sabha on 29 December contending that it was the “only prudent course” before the government and that it had ensured that the Bill remained alive. He continued to attack the BJP and called the amendments an “ingenious” method to scuttle the bill. Hazare called off his hunger strike prematurely, blaming poor health.

Budget session, 2012

Members of the panel proposed by the government

Member Name

Party

Shantaram Naik

Congress

Satyavrat Chaturvedi

Congress

Shadi Lal Batra

Congress

Arun Jaitley

BJP

Rajiv Pratap Rudy

BJP

Bhupendra Yadav

BJP

KN Balagopal

CPM

Shivanand Tiwari

JD-U

Tiruchi Shiva

DMK

Satish Mishra

BSP

D Bandyopadhyay

Trinamool Congress

Ramgopal Yadav

SP

DP Tripathi

NCP

V Maitreyan

AIADMK

AK Ganguly

Nominated

Activists pushing hoped that the House would approve the bill towards the end of the second half of the budget session of 2012. The bill was re-introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 21 May 2012. While moving the bill, the minister said that the differences had been narrowed. He said that the government proposed to bring the lower bureaucracy under the Lokpal, which would have investigation and prosecution powers. CVC would monitor Lokpal-referred investigations by the CBI. There would be provisions for attaching properties and a time-frame for investigations. An amendment was proposed whereby the states would pass the bill so the national law would not be forced upon states. After the amended bill was introduced, Narayanasamy, Samajwadi Party member Naresh Agrawal sought to send the bill to a select committee. This was strongly objected to by BJP, the Left parties and BSP, with their members arguing that only the minister concerned (Narayanasamy) could do so and accusing the ruling coalition of “using the shoulder” of a “friendly opposition” party. After high drama the government yielded and Narayanasamy moved the motion, which immediately passed by voice vote. The 15-member select committee was to submit its report by the first day of the last week of the Monsoon Session.

The committee met on 25 June and decided on “wider consultations” with the government officials and the public. The panel invited public comments and called representatives of various ministries for recording evidence. The meeting was headed by senior Congress MP Satyavrat Chaturvedi. Law Secretary B A Agarwal was summoned to clarify various matters. The committee met again on 19 July 2012. The director of the CBI aired his views in the meeting. He made it clear that the CBI is open to changes in the Lokpal bill that strengthen the agency’s autonomy by enhancing the proposed Lokpal’s role in key appointments like those of director, head of prosecution and lawyers who represent CBI. He also mentioned in the meeting that the Lokpal should be given a significant say in appointing the director of the prosecution wing instead of the process being controlled by the law ministry as is currently the procedure, the persistent criticism about CBI’s investigations being throttled by political directives could be addressed as well. He opposed making the prosecution or the anti-corruption wings subservient to the Lokpal. The select committee had in its earlier sittings examined senior law officials who agreed with the members that the prescription for lokayuktas under Article 253 that refers to fulfilment of international obligations – in this case the UN convention against corruption – might not be feasible. Recourse to international treaties to frame a law that impact the federal structure is not within the ambit of the law. The Select committee referred the Bill for Public Suggestions in July 2012. In reply hundreds of responses were received to the Rajya Sabha. The committee took a view and shortlisted certain recommendations and took Oral Evidence in physical presence of the Members. Committee considered some of the most valid suggestions being done by the Members. Mr. Deepak Tongli of Hyderabad had come with a proposal of setting up the lower most unit to keep regular check on Anti Corruption in petty cases at District Level. In addition few other members also shared their views in this regard. Mr. Tongli, 26 yrs aged happened to be the youngest person to appear before the Parliamentary committee for Oral Evidence at Rajya Sabha.

Monsoon session, 2012

The monsoon session of parliament was to be held in August 2012. Hence, a bill that is pending before the upper house whether or not it was passed by the Lok Sabha, does not lapse on its dissolution. Hence, the bill is still alive in its present form. The bill was not expected to be tabled in the Rajya Sabha before the first day of the last week of the session.

Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014

Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 is an Act of Indian Parliament that bifurcated the state of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and the residuary Andhra Pradesh state. The Act defined the boundaries of the two states, determed how the assets and liabilities were to be divided, and laid out the status of Hyderabad as the permanent capital of Telangana and temporary capital of the new Andhra Pradesh state.

An earlier version of the bill, Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2013, was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly on 30 January 2014. The 2014 bill was passed in the Lok Sabha on 18 February 2014 and in the Rajya Sabha on 20 February 2014. The bill was attested by the President of India, Pranab Mukherjee on 1 March 2014 and published in the official Gazette. The new states were created on 2 June 2014.

Contents

1 Legislative history

1.1 Suspension of members of parliament

1.2 Resolution for the united Andhra Pradesh in Assembly

1.3 Petitions against the Bill in Supreme Court

2 Details of the Bill

3 New capital for residual Andhra Pradesh

Legislative history

The Union Cabinet formed a Group of Ministers (GoM) committee in August 2013 led by the Union Home Minister, Sushil Kumar Shinde to look into the suitability of a division of Andhra Pradesh. The members included the Finance Minister, P. Chidambaram, Health Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad, Law Minister Kapil Sibal, Union Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh and NarayanaswamyIt also took the Srikrishna committee on Telangana into account.

A duly validated no-confidence motion against the congress government was submitted to the speaker of the house Meira Kumari by Congress MPs from Andhra Pradesh making the sitting government a minority government. Long held parliamentary procedure that required immediate consideration of no-confidence motions intended to prevent illegitimate governments from passing laws was ignored by the speaker. Amidst a lot of protest in the Lok Sabha (the lower house of the Parliament of India), the bill was introduced by the speaker Meira Kumar at 12:00 pm on 13 February 2014. During this time, there was a lot of shouting of slogans and disruption of proceedings by the Seemandhra (non-Telangana) MPs in the parliament who were determined to stop the bill. The Indian National Congress party MP’s attacked the anti-Telangana protestors, and the MP Lagadapati Rajagopal used pepper spray in the parliament. Later he said he was attacked by some Congress MPs from other states and had to use it in self-defence. The parliament was then adjourned at 12:05 pm to 02:00 pm.

The leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj said she did not know if the bill was introduced. On 18 February 2014, the Telangana Bill was passed by the Voice Vote in the Lok Sabha with support from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) while the live telecast of the House was cut off and the doors and galleries were sealed. The Seemandhra leaders accused the United Progressive Alliance government of having taken it up for electoral gains and said it was a “black day” for the Indian parliament.

On 20 February, the Telangana bill was passed by the Rajya Sabha (the higher house of parliament) with support from the BJP. MPs from various parties asked for division but it was rejected by speaker. Finally, the bill was passed by a voice vote.

The bill received the assent of the President and published in the Gazette on 1 March 2014. The new State came into effect “from the date set by the central government also known as appointed date.” It became the 29th state of India.

Though only an opinion is required under Article 3 of the Indian Constitution, a resolution was adopted and the bill was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly and Council on 30 January 2014.[21] This was the first instance a state was re-organized after a state clearly expressed an opinion against the re-organization in Indian history.

Petitions against the Bill in Supreme Court

Nine petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India requesting a stay of the tabling of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill in parliament. The court rejected the pleas saying, “We do not think this is the appropriate stage for us to interfere”. They would only consider the petition if the bill was passed in parliament. But the court issued notices to the centre regarding the issue on 7 March 2014. The apex court would take up the issue on 5 May 2014. The next hearing in the Supreme Court was scheduled for 20 August 2014 One petitioner approached the Supreme Court praying that the parliament does not have the power either under Articles 3, 4(2) or any other provision of the Constitution of India to divide a state except by an appropriate amendment of the Constitution under article 368 and with the unanimous consent of the people of the affected State or States. While invoking Articles 2 & 3, the deemed constitutional amendment provision under article 4 (2) of the constitution bypassing Article 368 was said to be invalid after the 24th amendment in 1971. The law ministry of the union government considered bringing appropriate amendments (including constitutional amendments) to the Act to bring legality to it.

The common high court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana states stated that the division of the high court located at Hyderabad can only be done with the formation of separate high court for Andhra Pradesh located in that state as per section 31 of the Act. A separate high court for Telangana can not be formed by dividing the present common high court as the existing high court at Hyderabad would become high court of Telangana state after the formation of one for Andhra Pradesh.

On the applicability of the section 47 of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, Supreme Court in its judgement clarified the manner the financial assets and liabilities of undivided state departments and corporations are to be shared between the new states. In an effort to avoid the huge financial burden to finance the creation of many institutions in the truncated AP state, the affidavit of central government clinched the dispute against the Telangana state

Details of the Bill

The bill was introduced on 5 December 2013, the first day of the winter session in the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh. The Union cabinet approved formation of Telangana with ten districts. Hyderabad will remain as the common capital under the Governor’s supervision for not more than ten years. A new capital city for Andhra Pradesh would be declared in 45 days.

The Bill was drafted based on the boundaries of the proposed Telangana State as approved by the Union Cabinet in its meeting on 3 October 2013. The new state of Telangana would have 119 elected members of its legislative assembly, 40 members of its legislative council, 17 members of the Lok Sabha and 7 members in the Rajya Sabha. The residuary state of Andhra Pradesh would have 175 elected MLAs, 50 MLCs, 25 MPs of Lok Sabha and 11 MPs of Rajya Sabha.

There would be a common High Court and its expenditure would be apportioned between the two successor states based on population ratio until a separate court was set up under Article 214 for the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh. The existing Public Service Commission would be the Public Service Commission for the residuary state of Andhra Pradesh and the Union Public Service Commission would, with the approval of President, act as the Public Service Commission for Telangana.

The Ministry of Water Resources of the Government of India would constitute a Krishna River Management Board and a Godavari River Management Board within a period of 60 days from the date of coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill. The Boards would be responsible for the administration, regulation and maintenance of the head works of the dams, reservoirs or head works of canals, as notified by the Government of India on Krishna and Godavari rivers, to implement all the awards made by the Tribunals. The Boards would be responsible for making an appraisal of proposals for construction of new projects on Krishna and Godavari rivers and give technical clearance.

The Governor shall have special responsibility to the security of life, liberty and property of all those who reside in the common capital of Hyderabad. The Governor’s responsibility shall extend to matters such as law and order, internal security and safety of all vital installations in the discharge of these functions. This transitory provision shall cease to be have effect after a period not exceeding 10 years.

The Bill provides for the creation of separate cadres of All India Servicesin respect of the two states from the appointed day. Advisory Committee(s) would be constituted to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all employees.

The Government of India shall help the successor states of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in raising additional police forces for maintenance of public order and shall also deploy one additional unit of the force in Hyderabad for a period of five years.

The Greyhound training centre in Hyderabad shall function as common training centre for the successor states for three years. In this period of three years, the GoI shall assist the successor state of Andhra Pradesh in setting up a similar training centre for Greyhounds. The existing Greyhound and OCTOPUS forces shall be distributed between the two states.

Of the total equity of Singareni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), 51 per cent shall be with Government of Telangana and 49 per cent with Government of India. Existing coal linkages of SCCL shall continue without any change. New linkages shall be allotted to the successor States as per the new coal distribution policy by the Government of India.

Allocation of natural gas will continue to be done as per the policies and guidelines issued by the Government of India. The royalties payable on domestic on-shore production of oil and gas shall accrue to the state in which such production takes place. Allocation of power from Central generating stations shall be allocated to the successor states in the ratio of the average of the actual energy consumption of last five years of the relevant Discoms. For a period of 10 years, the successor state that has a deficit of electricity shall have the first right of refusal for the purchase of surplus power from the other state.

Later Polavaram ordinance merging the project-affected villages in the residuary Andhra Pradesh state was accepted by the Parliament in July 2014. Seven mandals from Khammam district of Telangana have been transferred to Andhra Pradesh. Four mandals from Bhadrachalam revenue division namely, Chinturu, Kunavaram, Vararamachandrapuram, Bhadrachalam (excluding the Bhadrachalam revenue village) were transferred to East Godavari district. Three mandals from Palvancha revenue division namely, Kukunoor, Velerupadu, Burgampadu (except 12 villages namely, pinapaka, morampalli, banjara, burgampadu, naginiprolu, krishnasagar, tekula, sarapaka, iravendi, motepattinagar, uppusaka, nakiripeta and sompalli), have been added to West Godavari district. This came into force as the 16th Lok Sabha has passed the Polavaram Ordinance Bill with the voice vote on 11 July 2014.

New capital for residual Andhra Pradesh

On 4 September 2014, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Nara Chandrababu Naidu, declared in the Legislative Assembly that the new capital of Andhra Pradesh state would come up in and around Vijayawada. The capital city was named as Amaravati on 1 April 2015.

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2015

The Citizenship (Amendment) Bill, 2015 was introduced in Lok Sabha by the Minister of State, Ministry of Home Affairs, Mr. Haribhai Partibhai Chaudhary on February 27, 2015. The Bill amends the Citizenship Act, 1955.

The Citizenship Act, 1955 regulates the acquisition and determination of citizenship after commencement of the Constitution. It provides for citizenship by birth, descent, registration, naturalisation and by incorporation of territory. In addition, it provides for renunciation and termination of citizenship under certain circumstances. It also contains provisions regarding registration of Overseas Citizens of India and their rights.

Citizenship by registration and naturalisation: The Act allows a person to apply for citizenship by registration or naturalisation if they fulfil certain qualifications. For example, a person may apply for citizenship by registration if they or their parents were earlier citizens of India, and if they resided in India for one year before applying for registration. Similarly, a person may apply for a certificate of naturalisation if they have resided in India or have served a government in India for a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of application. The Bill allows the central government to relax the requirement of 12 months stay or service if special circumstances exist. Relaxation up to 30 days may be permitted.

Overseas Citizen of India cardholders: The Act outlines certain qualifications for registering a person as an Overseas Citizen of India. The Bill provides certain additional grounds for registering for an Overseas Citizen of India card. These are: (i) a minor child whose parent(s) are Indian citizens; or (ii) spouse of foreign origin of an Indian citizen or spouse of foreign origin of an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder subject to certain conditions; or (iii) great-grandchild of a person who is a citizen of another country, but who meets one of several conditions (for example, the great-grandparent must be a citizen of India at the time of commencement of the Constitution or any time afterwards). An Overseas Citizen of India is entitled to some benefits such as a multiple-entry, multi-purpose life-long visa to visit India.

The Act also provides that any person who is/has been a citizen of Pakistan or Bangladesh or any other country which is notified by the central government will be ineligible to apply for Overseas Citizenship of India. The Bill extends this provision to cover persons whose parents/grandparents/ great-grandparents were citizens of any of the above countries.

The Bill also introduces a new provision which allows the central government to register a person as an Overseas Citizen of India cardholder even if s/he does not satisfy any of the listed qualifications. This is permissible if special circumstances exist.

Merger of Overseas Citizen of India and Persons of Indian Origin schemes: Currently, the central government provides for two schemes for Indian origin persons, and their families, the Persons of Indian Origin card and the Overseas Citizen of India card. Persons of Indian Origin enjoy fewer benefits than Overseas Citizens of India. For example, they are entitled to visa free entry into India for 15 years, while Overseas Citizens of India are provided a life-long visa. The Bill provides that the central government may notify that Persons of Indian Origin cardholders shall be considered to be Overseas Citizen of India cardholders from a specified date.

Renunciation and cancellation of overseas citizenship: The Act provides that where a person renounces their overseas citizenship, their minor child shall also cease to be an Overseas Citizen of India. The Bill extends this provision to cover spouses of Overseas Citizen of India cardholders. The Bill also allows the central government to cancel the Overseas Citizenship of India card where it is obtained by the spouse of an Indian citizen or Overseas Citizen of India cardholder, if: (i) the marriage is dissolved by a court, or (ii) the spouse enters into another marriage even while the first marriage has not been dissolved.

Date of commencement: The Bill if enacted will be considered to have come into force on January 6, 2015.

After Independence

Committee

Appointed in

Submitted report in

Summary

Report

Shah Nawaz Committee

1955

1956

The three-member committee was formed by the Nehru-government to address the public demand to investigate the disappearance of Subhas Chandra Bose. The committee was led by Shah Nawaz Khan, and included Suresh Chandra Bose, brother of Subhas, and S. N. Maitra.

The committee came to the conclusion that Bose was killed in a plane crash. But, Suresh Chandra Bose did not agree with the report.

Balwant Rai Mehta Committee

1957

1957

Examine the working of the Community Development Programme and the National Extension Service

Establishment of the scheme of ‘democratic decentralisation’ (Panchayati Raj)

Ashok Mehta Committee

1977

1978

In December 1977, the Janata Government appointed a committee on Panchayati Raj institutions under the chairmanship of Ashoka Mehta.

The committee submitted its report in August 1978 and made 132 recommendations to revive and strengthen the declining Panchayati Raj system in the country

Narasimham Committee on Banking Sector Reforms (1998)

1998

1998

Sachar Committee

2005

2006

Examine social, economic and educational condition of the Muslim community of India

Srikrishna committee on Telangana

2010

2010

Naresh Chandra Committee

2012

Defense reforms

Ad hoc commissions

No.

Commission

Year

Objectives

1

States Reorganisation Commission

1955

Recommend the reorganization of state boundaries

2

Kothari Commission

1964

To formulate the general principles and guidelines for the development of education at all levels

To advise the government on a standardized national pattern of education in India

3

Kapur Commission

1966

To inquiry into the conspiracy that led to the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi

4

Khosla Commission

1970

Investigate the death of Subhas Chandra Bose in 1945

5

Mandal Commission

1980

Identified over 450 backward classes comprising 52% of the country’s population

Recommended 27% of the seats in academic institutions and jobs in Govt. organisations for these classes.

6

Sarkaria Commission

1983

To examine the balance of power between centre and state and suggest reforms

Gave appropriate reccomendations on appointment of Governor.

7

Mukherjee Commission

1999

Investigate the death of Subhas Chandra Bose in 1945

8

Nanavati Commission

2000

Investigate the 1984 anti-Sikh riots

9

Narendran Commission

2000

Study and report the representation of Backward Classes in the State public services.

10

National Commission to review the working of the Constitution

February 2000

Suggested changes in the electoral laws, setting up a national judicial commission for appointing judges and election of the Prime Minister by Lok Sabha.

11

Nanavati-Shah commission

2002

To probe the Godhra train burning incident and the post-Godhra carnage, 2002

12

CommisPermanent commissions

No.

Commission

Formed

Objectives

Ministry

Website

1

Atomic Energy Commission of India

3 August 1948

Plan and implement various measures on sound technical and economic principles and free from all non-essential restrictions or needlessly elastic rules in the field of atomic energy

Department of Atomic Energy

aec.gov.in

2

Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices

1965

Stabilize agricultural prices

Meaningful real income levels to farmers

Essential agricultural commodities at reasonable prices

Ministry of Agriculture (India)

cacp.dacner.nic.in

3

National Commission for Backward Classes[1]

14 August 1993

Consider inclusions in and exclusions from the lists of castes notified as backward for the purpose of job reservations

Advice to the Central Government on such matters

Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment

ncdc.nic.in

4

National Commission on Cattle

2002

Suggest ways of improving the condition of cattle

Ministry of Agriculture (India)

dahd.nic.in

5

Competition Commission of India

14 October 2003

Enforce The Competition Act, 2002 throughout India

Prevent activities that have an adverse effect on competition in India.

cci.gov.in

6

National Statistical Commission

1 June 2005

Reduce the problems faced by statistical agencies in the country in relation to collection of data.

Special emphasis on ensuring collection of unbiased data so as to restore public trust in the figures released by the Government.

Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation

mospi.nic.in

7

Telecom Commission[2]

1989

responsible for policy formulation, licensing, wireless spectrum management, administrative monitoring of PSUs, research and development and standardization/validation of equipment etc.

Ministry of Communications and Information Technology[4]

dot.gov.in

8

Election Commission

25 January 1950

Constitutional Autonomous Body

conducts the elections to the offices of the President and Vice-President of India,parliament,State Legislative assemblies and legislative councils

eci.nic.in

9

Chief Labour Commissioner

1945

Prevention and settlement of industrial disputes through conciliation/mediation.

Enforcement of Labour Laws and Rules made there under in Central Sphere.

Quasi-Judicial functions.

Verification of Trade Union membership etc.

clc.gov.in

10

Planning Commission

1950

Formulates India’s Five-Year Plans, among other functions

planningcommission.nic.in / planningcommission.org

11

Law Commission

1955

Reforming the Law For Maximising Justice in Society and Promoting Good Governance under the Rule of Law

Ministry of Law & Justice

lawcommissionofindia.nic.in

12

Finance Commission

22 November 1951

Autonomous Constitutional Body

fincomindia.nic.in

13

Human Rights Commission

12 October 1993

Autonomous Constitutional Body

nhrc.nic.in

14

University Grants Commission

28 December 1953

Coordination, determination and maintenance of standards of university education.

It provides recognition to universities in India, and disburses funds to such recognized universities and college.

Ministry of Human Resource Development

ugc.ac.in

15

Vigilance Commission (CVC)

February 1964

To address governmental corruption

cvc.nic.in

16

Knowledge Commission

13 June 2005

knowledgecommission.gov.in

17

National Commission for Women

1992

* protecting and promoting the interests of women in India

ncw.nic.in

18

Scheduled Tribes Commission

19 February 2004

* protection, welfare and development & advancement of the Scheduled Tribes